Md. Nurul Haque

The people of this country fought a liberation war against the unjust rule and discrimination of Pakistanis. The spirit of the liberation war has been tarnished and stigmatized by the dictator Hasina and her cohorts. According to a national daily, the names of 50,000 fake freedom fighters have been included in the National Freedom Fighters Council. This injustice dishonors the true heroes and deprives them of the benefits they rightfully deserve. Some other media have mentioned that more than 55 thousand freedom fighters have been brought to the list of freedom fighters. Descendants of these freedom fighters enjoy education and job benefits with various quota benefits and a mountainous monthly allowance.

Latif Siddiqui, MP, alleged that former Water Resources Minister Shajahan Khan assisted in preparing this list from behind the National Freedom Fighters Council. The altercation between Latif Siddiqui MP and Shajahan Khan also came to the media. In making up this false list, secretaries were involved in irregularities and corruption by taking advantage of special quotas and being close to the dictatorial government.

The nation always respects freedom fighters, but the dictatorial government allocated an enormous monthly allowance without their mandate. Many freedom fighters are well-to-do in society and rich in family lineage. Why was the Hasina government so enthusiastic about allocating a monthly allowance in their name? Did the freedom fighters block the road to materialize to their ends? No, they didn't have to do any of these. This allowance was announced without the people's knowledge to divide the nation into pro and anti-liberation ends.

This allowance could not cover many freedom fighters of the BNP genre. There is no question of naming the freedom fighters of Jamaat allegiance. Long ago, they were discriminated against by calling them pro-Pakistani because of their Islamic approach. According to them, Jamaat means anti-independence. And those who joined Jamaat-e-Islami as freedom fighters are also anti-independence. In other words, the Awami League is a party of freedom fighters, and if someone has allegiance to the Awami League, he is pro-independence; if someone does not, he isn’t. If you support Jamaat, you are anti-independence. In this way, Hasina and her vested quarters have questioned the honor and status of the liberation war in a well-planned manner, manipulating the narrative to serve their interests and depriving the public of the truth and transparency they deserve. This manipulation of historical narratives was a grave injustice that the public could not tolerate.

Former President Ziaur Rahman, who led Sector 11 during the Liberation War and was honored with the title of Bir Uttam by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman for his battlefield heroics, later entered politics by founding the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) amid the country’s political upheavals. However, due to political power struggles, Sheikh Hasina labeled him a criminal and questioned his liberation war credentials.

She publicly accused him of being responsible for the deaths of army officers, aiming to tarnish his party’s image and prevent the BNP from being seen as a viable alternative to her Awami League. Additionally, her party members, including former Information Minister Hasanul Haque Inu, who accused Ziaur Rahman of being a Pakistani spy, joined in defaming him. Because of Inu’s lack of popularity, he failed in the local election, and the money he had deposited for the election was forfeited. Still, he won a parliamentary seat with Hasina’s support and was later rewarded with a ministerial position, highlighting the political maneuvering within the Awami League.

To curry favor with Hasina, Inu opportunistically claimed control of Jasad (National Socialist Party), a once-prominent political faction led by heavyweights like Shahjahan Siraj and Major Jalil. Inu, a figure of relatively minor stature, used this association to elevate himself within Hasina’s government, amassing vast wealth through questionable means. Hasina's co-opting of liberation war heroes, including figures such as Shamser Mubin Chowdhury and Muhammad Ibrahim, illustrates a deliberate political strategy to consolidate influence over wartime leaders, effectively manipulating history to reinforce the ruling party's dominance.

Another critic of the Awami League was the Krishak Sramik Janata League leader, Quader Siddiqui, who was outside the Awami League and was also targeted. However, there were accusations of immorality in his name before. At one time, he had a government responsibility to build a bridge. Still, It is unknown whether there has been any resolution to the complaint that the bill was withdrawn, leaving the bridge unfinished. When Siddiqui, the titled freedom fighter, was critical of the Awami League, there were constant attempts to silence him. There was a complaint in the media about allocating an expensive house under the provision of one taka in Mohammadpur, the capital. In this way, dictator Hasina Gong has continued the process of taking control of everyone outside the Awami League, the title holder of the liberation war.

Sheikh Hasina hanged Chittagong BNP leader Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury in a controversial trial. He once stood in the parliament and said, 'Hasina's Awami League is a machine in which Razakars enter from one side and come out as freedom fighters from the other side.' Due to these reasons, this politician, who could speak on her face, was hanged by Hasina through the judicial process by the judges.

Kamal Hossain was Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's government's first foreign minister and the author of Bangladesh's constitution. He once said, “There are no titled freedom fighters within the Awami League. He said, Bir Uttam, Bir Bikram, Bir Pratik - almost all of them are out of Awami League.” Sheikh Hasina considered the liberation war and freedom fighters who responded to her father's call a complete family asset. Nothing mattered to her, not the freedom fighters' leadership but the power by any means. This attitude remained unchanged till the end of her reign and finally brought the end of her autocracy and possessiveness.

The writer is an assistant professor of English at IUBAT and a PhD candidate at Universiti Putra Malaysia.